Both Nicole and Ron were stabbed multiple times and slashed. If you see someone stabbed multiple times normal reaction is to run and in case of Ron a black belt karate could have tried to interfere. Which I'm convinced Ron could have kicked OJ in the middle of his stabbing of Nicole.
Goldman was likely stabbed first.
Had Nicole been attacked 1st, Goldman would have escaped
Here’s Fuhrman’s take on how the attacks happened:
You are one internally confused person. You are saying on the one hand that black people were "justified" in cheering for the acquittal of a person who committed an unjustified and brutal double murder, but that you "do not agree with their sentiment."
"They weren't cheering that O.J. Simpson the man was found not guilty." I don't know why you decided to make that up. What a ridiculous statement. Very demeaning to blacks. You saying that black people cheered a verdict of not guilty of someone they believed was guilty of double murder, solely because of the color of his skin.
25 years on and its clear that the majority of liberals now believe Simpson was innocent. Maybe you can't figure out your feelings on it, but that doesn't mean your fellow liberals can't.
You are an idiot. I didn't say they were "justified." I said I UNDERSTOOD why they cheered and that I disagreed with their sentiment.
I said clearly what the situation was and is, and none of it is demeaning to black people. You are completely incorrect that the majority of liberals believe Simpson is innocent. Where do you get this nonsense?
Anyway, you are a fool and likely a troll, but either way, I'm done with you on this subject. You are an idiot.
Changing your tune, eh? You are now saying numerous black people were not justified in cheering for Simpson when he was acquitted of double murder.
And this statement by you: "They weren't cheering that O.J. Simpson the man was found not guilty" is (1) something you made up on the fly, as you have no idea whether its true or not, and (2) demeaning to black people -- you are saying black people cheered the Not Guilty verdict on Simpson's unjustified and brutal double murder because of Simpson's skin color, and not based on any belief that Simpson was actually not guilty or innocent. That is quite an allegation against black people. And unjustified racist allegation by you.
The point I was making was that even in one's late sixties it is easily possible to have the physical resources to match those far younger. For a former pro athlete, 47 is easily capable of doing what he did.
Your hypocrisy is impressive.
Remember the above when you call masters runners dopers just because they perform well.
Your stupidity is even more impressive. I am not entering a running race with younger people - and nor was OJ. But even at my age I have enough strength to easily use a weapon like a knife - were I so motivated (I am not) - and stabbing another human being would be no more physically difficult than cutting a cucumber.
You are an idiot. I didn't say they were "justified." I said I UNDERSTOOD why they cheered and that I disagreed with their sentiment.
I said clearly what the situation was and is, and none of it is demeaning to black people. You are completely incorrect that the majority of liberals believe Simpson is innocent. Where do you get this nonsense?
Anyway, you are a fool and likely a troll, but either way, I'm done with you on this subject. You are an idiot.
Changing your tune, eh? You are now saying numerous black people were not justified in cheering for Simpson when he was acquitted of double murder.
And this statement by you: "They weren't cheering that O.J. Simpson the man was found not guilty" is (1) something you made up on the fly, as you have no idea whether its true or not, and (2) demeaning to black people -- you are saying black people cheered the Not Guilty verdict on Simpson's unjustified and brutal double murder because of Simpson's skin color, and not based on any belief that Simpson was actually not guilty or innocent. That is quite an allegation against black people. And unjustified racist allegation by you.
You clearly weren't present during the trial or you would have been aware of the racial dimensions that it acquired and that Simpson's legal team played upon. Indeed, if the jury's decision in the criminal trial was not largely racially-based it is difficult to explain how a subsequent civil jury had no difficulty in finding him guilty and thus liable. Perhaps you are of the view that black people cannot understand the facts in a criminal trial - which would of course be a somewhat racist conclusion?
You surprise the first one by pulling out a knife real quick and stabbing them, which surprises the second one. Then you stab them.
Both Nicole and Ron were stabbed multiple times and slashed. If you see someone stabbed multiple times normal reaction is to run and in case of Ron a black belt karate could have tried to interfere. Which I'm convinced Ron could have kicked OJ in the middle of his stabbing of Nicole.
While the attack was likely not predetermined it still would have been a surprise to both of the victims. When a person is being stabbed it may not be immediately apparent to a bystander and if they attempt to interfere they will also be incapacitated pretty quickly. That is likely what occurred during this situation and was demonstrated during the trial. It was never in dispute as to whether it could have happened this quickly.
Both Nicole and Ron were stabbed multiple times and slashed. If you see someone stabbed multiple times normal reaction is to run and in case of Ron a black belt karate could have tried to interfere. Which I'm convinced Ron could have kicked OJ in the middle of his stabbing of Nicole.
While the attack was likely not predetermined it still would have been a surprise to both of the victims. When a person is being stabbed it may not be immediately apparent to a bystander and if they attempt to interfere they will also be incapacitated pretty quickly. That is likely what occurred during this situation and was demonstrated during the trial. It was never in dispute as to whether it could have happened this quickly.
The trial did not revolve around whether Simpson was capable of killing them - which is what this absurd thread is debating - but whether Simpson was in fact the perpetrator on the evidence before the court. That is a completely different question. The civil jury answered that question in the affirmative.
lol does anyone on this board really believe oj didn't do it? I get the community wanting him to get away with it. I mean if it was a white dude killing 2 blacks It would be normal for whites to cheer for an acquittal, right? BLM would't have a problem with that would they ? No race riots either ?
While the attack was likely not predetermined it still would have been a surprise to both of the victims. When a person is being stabbed it may not be immediately apparent to a bystander and if they attempt to interfere they will also be incapacitated pretty quickly. That is likely what occurred during this situation and was demonstrated during the trial. It was never in dispute as to whether it could have happened this quickly.
The trial did not revolve around whether Simpson was capable of killing them - which is what this absurd thread is debating - but whether Simpson was in fact the perpetrator on the evidence before the court. That is a completely different question. The civil jury answered that question in the affirmative.
Dude....you're forever babbling about something which you have enough info to be dangerous. The trial focused on many aspects of the case which included, even though briefly, how the crime occurred and that it was plausible for one person to kill two people that quickly. You know why it's included in the trial? Because if they don't, the potential of a juror like the poster above claiming it couldn't have, might be the one vote who deadlocks a jury.
You may now commence with five more posts all pretty much babbling a bunch of nothing in contribution to the thread.
Are you really comparing playing tennis to the struggle of life and death? Survival instincts kick in when someone is trying to kill you. Even animals have this instinct. It's hard for me to dismiss two young people in prime of their physical fitness would have gone down that easily.
The point I was making was that even in one's late sixties it is easily possible to have the physical resources to match those far younger. For a former pro athlete, 47 is easily capable of doing what he did.
Simpson's victims wouldn't have expected to be attacked. By the time he had attacked them with a lethal weapon, it was too late. He, on the other hand, was driven by his own rage. He was a powerful man. They wouldn't have seen it coming. They had no chance.
The civil jury had no trouble concluding he had killed them. You really have no idea about any of this.
OK boomer believe what you wish. But there is no way a 47 year old OJ with a bum knee would have taken me down without some serious injuries to himself and not just some cut finger.
Changing your tune, eh? You are now saying numerous black people were not justified in cheering for Simpson when he was acquitted of double murder.
And this statement by you: "They weren't cheering that O.J. Simpson the man was found not guilty" is (1) something you made up on the fly, as you have no idea whether its true or not, and (2) demeaning to black people -- you are saying black people cheered the Not Guilty verdict on Simpson's unjustified and brutal double murder because of Simpson's skin color, and not based on any belief that Simpson was actually not guilty or innocent. That is quite an allegation against black people. And unjustified racist allegation by you.
You clearly weren't present during the trial or you would have been aware of the racial dimensions that it acquired and that Simpson's legal team played upon. Indeed, if the jury's decision in the criminal trial was not largely racially-based it is difficult to explain how a subsequent civil jury had no difficulty in finding him guilty and thus liable. Perhaps you are of the view that black people cannot understand the facts in a criminal trial - which would of course be a somewhat racist conclusion?
Aren't you from Australia or something? WTF do you know about being "present" during the Simpson trial?
Civil trials have a different burden of proof, different burden of persuasion, different evidentiary concerns, different Constitutional rights to deal with. It's too bad you are unaware of those differences, because your ignorance of them makes your post gibberish.
Both Nicole and Ron were stabbed multiple times and slashed. If you see someone stabbed multiple times normal reaction is to run and in case of Ron a black belt karate could have tried to interfere. Which I'm convinced Ron could have kicked OJ in the middle of his stabbing of Nicole.
Goldman was likely stabbed first.
Had Nicole been attacked 1st, Goldman would have escaped
According to some forensic experts, not sure if they testified in the trial or not but Simpson simultaneously knocked out Niconle and Ron then began attacking them with a knife. Which is even harder to believe
Both Nicole and Ron were stabbed multiple times and slashed. If you see someone stabbed multiple times normal reaction is to run and in case of Ron a black belt karate could have tried to interfere. Which I'm convinced Ron could have kicked OJ in the middle of his stabbing of Nicole.
While the attack was likely not predetermined it still would have been a surprise to both of the victims. When a person is being stabbed it may not be immediately apparent to a bystander and if they attempt to interfere they will also be incapacitated pretty quickly. That is likely what occurred during this situation and was demonstrated during the trial. It was never in dispute as to whether it could have happened this quickly.
Not premeditated? He went there with a ski mask and the infamous gloves that “did not fit.” Lol
Based upon your recommendation, I have looked up Derrick Levasseur and his "OJ investigation." I have educated myself on this. Ask me anything. Go ahead. Shoot. Shoot me some questions on Derrick Levasseur and his OJ investigation. Go ahead. I'll answer anything you got. I'll set you straight one way or the other.
Let's do this.
Mr. Lavasseur constructed a believable timeline about Jason that was basically accepted, even after the Goldman family accepted it wasn't Jason...
He successfully debunked Detective William Dear's arguments.
So with Mr. Lavasseur having been an officer before a reality show contestant and winner coupled with his exoneration of Jason, whom Dear was actively pursuing...
Explain with actual evidence of mens rea with regard to Jason alone...how you can implicate Jason on legal ground.
I'm not reputable...that's a given..but if you use that as your defense? That's passion...not law.
What's your legal argument regarding Jason Simpson?
The trial did not revolve around whether Simpson was capable of killing them - which is what this absurd thread is debating - but whether Simpson was in fact the perpetrator on the evidence before the court. That is a completely different question. The civil jury answered that question in the affirmative.
Dude....you're forever babbling about something which you have enough info to be dangerous. The trial focused on many aspects of the case which included, even though briefly, how the crime occurred and that it was plausible for one person to kill two people that quickly. You know why it's included in the trial? Because if they don't, the potential of a juror like the poster above claiming it couldn't have, might be the one vote who deadlocks a jury.
You may now commence with five more posts all pretty much babbling a bunch of nothing in contribution to the thread.
You probably weren't alive in the early nineties so you don't recall what the trial was about. It wasn't about whether Simpson was strong enough to kill two people with a knife but whether he did it - did the evidence establish beyond a reasonable doubt that it was him. That was what the famous "glove" incident in the courtroom highlighted. A civil jury unaffected by the racial question that pervaded the criminal case unanimously concluded he did.
So tell us once again how this frail little old man couldn't have committed the killings. Because there is nothing else to this unbelievably fatuous thread.
The point I was making was that even in one's late sixties it is easily possible to have the physical resources to match those far younger. For a former pro athlete, 47 is easily capable of doing what he did.
Simpson's victims wouldn't have expected to be attacked. By the time he had attacked them with a lethal weapon, it was too late. He, on the other hand, was driven by his own rage. He was a powerful man. They wouldn't have seen it coming. They had no chance.
The civil jury had no trouble concluding he had killed them. You really have no idea about any of this.
OK boomer believe what you wish. But there is no way a 47 year old OJ with a bum knee would have taken me down without some serious injuries to himself and not just some cut finger.
I have 2 metal hips. If I had a knife and surprised you I doubt you would have caused me much difficulty. Simpson's "bum knee" meant he couldn't play pro sports, not that he couldn't stab anyone. He wasn't in a wheelchair - or in a sprint race. Your naivety is off the charts.
While the attack was likely not predetermined it still would have been a surprise to both of the victims. When a person is being stabbed it may not be immediately apparent to a bystander and if they attempt to interfere they will also be incapacitated pretty quickly. That is likely what occurred during this situation and was demonstrated during the trial. It was never in dispute as to whether it could have happened this quickly.
Not premeditated? He went there with a ski mask and the infamous gloves that “did not fit.” Lol
He thought he was taking a skiing trip. Dementia, too, obviously. He was really 95 - right?
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.